Christina Acosta vs. Global Girls Rising

Reply to Motion

Cal. Super. - 4th Dist.December 18, 2015

O O 0 3 S N w n d s W w N Y R N D N BY ) D N D N D N B N DR Y me m e d pe t pe nd Je et pe ed pe d pe ed de ed e d ~ ~ N h B A W N e e © 0 N N Y R W N O O 28 Hi1GGS FLETCHER & MACK LLP ATTORNEYS AT Law SaN DIEGO ALEXIS S. GUTIERREZ, ESQ. (Bar No. 190487) agutierrez@higgslaw.com GEOFFREY M. THORNE, ESQ. (Bar No. 284740) thorneg@higgslaw.com HIGGS FLETCHER & MACK LLP 401 West "A" Street, Suite 2600 San Diego, CA 92101-7913 TEL: 619.236.1551 FAX: 619.696.1410 Attorneys for Defendant GLOBAL G.L.O.W.(f/k/a and erroneously sued as “Global Girls Rising”) SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE CHRISTINA ACOSTA, an individual, CASE NO.30-2015-00826041-CU-WT-CJC Plaintiff, REPLY IN SUPPORT OF GLOBAL G.L.O.W.’S MOTION TO AMEND Vv. RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR GLOBAL GIRLS RISING; GLOBAL ADMISSION G.L.O.W. and DOES 1 through 20, [C.C.P. § 2033.300] inclusive, DATE: Defendants. TIME: DEPT: JUDGE: CASE FILED: December 18,2015 TRIAL DATE: November 6, 2017 [RESERVATION NUMBER: 72670713] October 20, 2017 9:00 a.m. CX102 Hon. William D. Claster Defendant GLOBAL G.L.O.W. (f/k/a and erroneously sued as “Global Girls Rising”) (“Global”) respectfully submits this reply brief in support of its motion to amend responses to request for admissions. 1117 11] 111 111 8179528.1 Reply in Support of Global G.L.O.W.’s Motion to Amend Responses to Request for Admission O O 0 3 N N n h BA R W N N O N N N N N N N m e e m e m p m k d be d e d pe d p m ~ ~ A N n n B R A W N k e O W N N B R E W N N = O 28 HIGGS FLETCHER & MACK LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN DIEGO L PLAINTIFF DOES NOT OPPOSE GLOBAL’S AMENDED RESPONSES TO REQUEST NOS. 11, 13 AND 18 Global seeks leave to amend responses to affirm that: (7) Global did not provide written statements advising Plaintiff CHRISTINA ACOSTA (“Plaintiff”) that she was a “mandated reporter” (No. 11), (2) Global did not have written policies and procedures regarding mandated reporting (Global’s internal reporting policies are otherwise sufficient, however) (No. 13), and (3) Global notified Plaintiff about the internal policies and procedures she violated at the time her employment was terminated (No. 18). Plaintiff does not oppose Global’s amended responses to these requests. (Oppo., p. 3:21-22 [“Plaintiff does not seek to oppose Defendant’s changing its Denials to Admissions for RFA Nos. 11, 13 or 18.”].)! Because these amended responses are not disputed, leave should be granted. IL LEAVE SHOULD BE GRANTED FOR REQUEST NOS. 20-21, 23 AND 26-29 “Thetrial court’s discretion in ruling on a motion to withdraw or amend an admission is not unlimited, but must be exercised in conformity with the spirit of the law and in a manner that serves the interests ofjustice.” (New Albertsons, Inc. v. Superior Court (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1420.) The law strongly favors trial and disposition on the merits, as such, “any doubts in applying section 2033.300 must be resolved in favor of the party seeking relief.” (Id.) These requests asked Global to make various admissions regarding the organization’s compliance with mandated reporter requirements “from November 2013 to the present.” (Global’s NOL, Ex. D.) When Global initially denied the requests in August 2016, the responses were truthful and accurate; however, after the responses were served, Global began distribution materials to employees. Given that the requests call for ! Plaintiff inadvertently stated that Global is amending the response to No. 18 from a “Denial” to “Admit.” 8179528.1 2 Reply in Support of Global G.L.O.W.’s Motion to Amend Responses to Request for Admission O W « © 1 3 O N b n h s W N = R O R O N N N N N N = m e e d m d p e e e p e e d f e ~~ ] O N n h R A W N = , D O S N B E W N e s O O 28 HIGGS FLETCHER & MACK LLP ATTORNEYS AT Law San DIEGO Global to admit or deny the fact “from November 2013 fo the present,” leave should be granted so that Global can provide accurate responses. In fact, Plaintiff seemingly acknowledges the requests are misleading by suggesting the bolded language actually refers to the date the responses were served-as opposed to current day (i.e., “the present”). (Oppo., p. 6:3-5 [“RFA Nos. 20-21, 23, and 26-29 seek admissions that from November 1, 2013 through the present (i.e. the date of service and response to RFA2 - June/August of 2016) Defendant did not provide employees with mandated reporting materials as required by law.”].) If Global is not permitted to amend the responses, there is a seriousrisk of confusion attrial. The Burch case cited by Plaintiff does not support compel a different result. In that matter, a party propounded the following request for admission: “Admit that you have no evidence of recreational use of the disputed portion of Summit Road prior to March 4, 1972.” (Burch v. Gombos (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 352, 356.) The responding party replied to the request with an unqualified admission. (/d.) However, in connection with a summary judgment motion, the responding party submitted evidence regarding the recreational use of the road pre-1972; that is, inconsistent with the response to the request for admission. (/d.) The propounding party claimed this was the first time she became aware of the evidence, and moved to exclude the evidence at trial. (Id., pp. 356-357.) The appellate court observed at the outset that the “premise underlying [the propounding party’s] argumentis that [the responding party] had a duty to amend or withdraw the response to the RFA upon obtaining evidence of such use.” (/d., p. 359.) In that regard, the court “disagree[d] with that premise” because the statute does not “create any ongoing duty to update responses.” (Id.) Indeed, the analysis was focused exclusively on whether the responding party had an affirmative obligation to supplement the response before trial. (/d., p. 361.) The court further noted there was no prejudice to the propounding party because she learned about the evidence several weeks before trial, and did not conduct additional discovery. (/d.) Based on the foregoing, the appellate court concluded the evidence was admissible at trial. 81795281 3 Reply in Support of Global G.L.O.W.’s Motion to Amend Responses to Request for Admission O O 0 3 S N n n A A W N N O N N N N O N N N m m e e e m p e e m p m e e e e e d ~ ~ N n R A W N m e © 0 0 0 0 N Y E R W N = O 28 HIGGS FLETCHER & MACK LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN DIEGO Burch is distinguishable from the facts in this case. Fundamentally, Burch did not involve a party seeking leave to amend responses to requests for admission. (Burch, 82 Cal.App.4th at 359 [“Here, there is no dispute that Redwood Empire never sought leave to amend or withdraw its response to the RFA in issue.”].) Moreover, the request for admission in Burch was not “open-ended” like the request served by Plaintiff (“from November 2013 to the present”); rather, the request was tethered to a date certain. Further, it must be pointed out that the responding party in Burch was permitted to “sandbag” opposing counsel with the undisclosed evidence whereas, here, Global provided the amended responses seven months ago (March 2017). (Id., p. 360 [“Notwithstanding our conclusion, we do not fault Dean for feeling ‘sandbagged’.”].) Indeed, Plaintiff had ample opportunity to propound additional discovery (which would have been consistent with their “scorched earth”tactics) regarding this issue. Simply put, Plaintiff will not be prejudiced if the requested relief is granted. (/d., p. 360 [“As to what happened here, we agree with the trial court that there was no real prejudice to Dean. She learned the evidence existed several weeks before trial.”’].) To ensure there is a disposition on the merits, the Court should exercise its discretion and permit Global to amend the responses to requests for admission. HL CONCLUSION For these reasons, and the argument set forth in the moving papers, Global’s motion to amend responses to requests for admissions should be granted. DATED: October 13, 2017 HIGGS FLETCHER & MACK LLP By: ALEXIS S. GUTIERREZ, ESQ. GEOFFREY M. THORNE, ESQ. Attorneys for Defendant GLOBAL G.L.O.W. (f/k/a and erroneously sued as “Global Girls Rising”) 8179528.1 4 Reply in Support of Global G.L.O.W.’s Motion to Amend Responses to Request for Admission